fashion. the correspondence, they didn't really have too much in common, but i think he knew he owed people, that it ration of that part of the continent and very respected very, very much. >> final question, if i may, united states had a number of agents in latin america when it was going on, correspondence between the agents and our secretary of state and our president. can you comment on the extent to which that correspondence contributed to misconceptions on the part of north americans? >> absolutely, absolutely. in the middle of a rough campaign. he was not only -- i mean, he was suffering from em --

hemorrhoids, a number of things doing 75,000 miles on horse back, and into this moment of trying to get to the plains of venezuela, a tremendous force, huge expeditionary force under the spaniards fighting to keep grip on the colony, in comes the american agents and one of whom was famously a reporter who came down and sort of freelanceing information back to the president and his cabinet and he was not treated well. you can just imagine. they had a scribbling pad in the middle of the revolution, and he

was not treated well. the reports sent back to washington were absolutely scathing, a man with that polian ambitions, and you couldn't say anything worse to an american than to a man with those ambitions. we're talking about 1815 and forward. slavery was one of the -- gordon wood described it well, and it was our gmp, it was -- slavery was huge, and the worst thing

that washington could imagine, talking about washington as -- it was very, the -- the reputation began to get worse and worse in the united states because every sort of slappedder, i think, was used against him including the fact a lot of people were dying in the revolution. it was a very bloody revolution. didn't speak well for the whole enterprise. thank you. [applause]

about 10-15 years ago, we started looking at the department data, and something very strange kind of pops out, and when you looked at where the profits are of multinationals, you know, look at a map of europe, there's germany, france, ireland, italy, but look at the data on where the profits are, it leads to france, germany,

ireland. it's just this all of -- not a hugely disportioned amount of profit in ireland. that was one indication something was going on. >> more with marty sullivan chief economist for tax analyst, a nonprofit global provider of tax news an analysis sunday night at eight on c-span's q&a. >> next, how women impact today's politics. from this morning's "washington journal," this is 40 minutes. >> politician institute university, and she's coauthored this report, girls just want to not run. the gender gap in young americans political ambition. are women not running for office? >> guest: they are not running for office, and women are not even thinking of oning for office, which, in a lot of ways

is more problematic than the lack of female candidates itself. >> host: why? why are they not thinking about it even? >> guest: it's not appearing on women's radar screens for several reasons. the two most important ones is no one suggests it, family members, friends, party leader, officials are likely to recruit and encourage men to run for office over women, and second, women with the same credentials of men who on paper look the same are far less likely than men to self-assess of being qualified to run for office. self-doubts hold them back and few people mitigate the doubts by providing encouragement. >> host: 20% of the u.s. senate is women, 17.8% of the house of representatives, state governors 10%, 23% of state legislators, ect.. you see the chart here that you put into your report. isn't that all good news? >> guest: it's all good news except it's important to step

back and remember women are 52% of the pop population, now moren half the college graduates out there, receiving law degrees, business degrees in equal numbers of as men. they are under represented in positions of political power and that should raise an eyebrow. >> host: the gender gap in political ambition. you have a chart from the research, and women are represented in piping and men are represented in blue. thought about running for office, many times 20% of men, 10% of women. has crossed my mind, 37% men, 27% women. never thought about it, 63% of women. is this a -- is this a fact that men and women are different or raised not to think of these? >> guest: i think it's a combination of a series of factors. the recruitment factor, the

qualifications factor, but the other thing to keep in mind is this report is a pore portrait of college students. these are 18 to 25-year-olds. to cover a gender gap of this size among the group of people who have not determined what the career will be is stunning, and the gap uncovered here, this was co-oped by richard foxes, is the same size of the gender gap of successful lawyers, educators, political activists. something's happening discouraging women from thinking about politics as a lucrative profession, one that is appealing in any kind of way, in a way that's not discouraging men. >> host: and is there a way of changing that, that early, what you call that early focus on boys? >> guest: i think there's a few things we can do. the first is we know that women and men and boys and girls are equally receptive to thinking of

running for office when suggested. the easiest thing to do is encourage young women to think about it, put it on the list of plausible options. we also know, interestingly, competitive experiences reenforces qualities and traits that tend to be related to political ambition. playing sports in high school or college, for example, running for high school government, those are experiences that are linked to interests running for office later in life. to the extent we close gaps on those factors, we can promote female candidates. >> host: i want to go back to the sports thing. by the way, we'll talk about women in politics, numbers will be up, and we set aside the fourth line this morning for women who hold political office or have run for political office, and jennifer has run. i want to go back to the sports

thing because you hit it in the report. organized sports in college, plays a v.ty or junior varsity sport, intermural spores, men have higher participation rates than women in both, but why is it important? >> guest: i think that sports and competition in general sends a small it's okay to compete, okay to win, and it's okay to lose. a lot of the thyme -- time when we think of running for office, we think about pretty devissive contests and harsh competition. if they experienced a different arena, i think that can mitigate concerns they have as to whether they could succeed in the political arena. >> host: here's another one. politicizedded environment and political ambition. ran for student government in college, only 6% of women, but 43% of men.

watches daily show, 9-15%, and member of the college democrats or republicans, 31% of men, 7% of women. >> guest: it seems to be the case when women get to college, their interests diverge from those of the male counterparts. we don't don't uncover differences like this in high school, for example, so what seems to be happening is that women and men have different interests, and there's different interests that are fueled by the college experience. that's not to say they can't be brought closer in line together and can't encourage women to think about politics and political science classes to understand how the issues they care about are, in fact, political and related to government, but the onerous is not on us to do that because they are not naturally interested in those professions. >> host: did the parties, democrats and republicans, don't they focus on women and recruiting women and getting

women involved? >> guest: well, 20% of the united states senate is women. >> host: maybe they just have not won. >> guest: the interesting fact is when women run for office, all levels, as well as the male counterparts, the problem therefore is not on the part of the voters. they are willing to elect women. the problem is that women are not running in the numbers we expect them to run in. now, the facet i just said about how when women run for office they fare as well as the male counterparts, women don't know that. we found in the studies 75% of the people believe there's bias against female candidates. actually, not to run for office might be a rational response to a political environment that potential candidates perceive as bias. importantly, we have to decimate the message that women are just as able to succeed. >> host: here's another chart. openness towards potential jobs and professions by sex. again, these are college-age men and women.

open to political positions, men are higher on all three president, member of congress, and then going to historically female careers, 30% of women are open to teaching, 23% open to nursing, 18% open to secretary. >> guest: we still have traditional sex segregation in terms of occupational preferences, and that's especially interesting among a college sample because this is a group of people where we would think that we would see far more gal tearianism, and we do. careers like lawyer or doctor, there's women and men equally likely to think about that, but when we think about the most traditional roles, for men and women, we see that even the young generation fall into those realms. >> host: what about when we talk about women's -- so-called women's issues in politics? >> guest: there's a lot of debate over what the issues are.

traditionally, they are defined as issues that di portionally affect women's families and children because the reality is women are still responsible for their families and children at far greater rates than men. there is evidence to suggest that women are seen as more credible legislating on a lot of the issues, and that when those issues dominate in the political arena, female candidates might have an edge. that was certainly the case in the 1990s and in the early 2000s. more recent evidence calls that into question. we now reached the point where both male and female can adopts are equally likely to be stereotyped as confidence when we talk on women's issues, but on issues of the economy and national security. >> host: jennifer, tell us about your experience running for office. >> guest: i ran for the u.s. house of representatives in rhode island, second congressional district in the democratic primary in 2006, and i lost. >> host: well, why did you get into it, and what was the experience like? >> guest: the experience was unquestionably the most

exhilarating fulfilling experience i ever had in my life. i got in the race because it was a heavily democratic district, and i thought that the incumbent was not adequately representing the people who lived there. on a lot of social policy issues, women's rights to choose in particular, he was out of sync, and thought i could do a better job. >> host: and did you raise money? i mean, what did -- what was the hard part? what was the exhilarating part? >> guest: taking on the incumbent is very, very difficult because you have to build name recognition and start from scratch. i raised several hundred thousand dollars, garnered 40% of the vote, but the thing that was the most exhilarating was talking to voters, many of whom never interacted with an actual candidate or elected official, and what was striking to me was not only the manner in which they were so ready to talk about their experiences and how they needed help and what they wanted from government, but also that they really believed that running for office was a noble profession, and we tend to see

our negative attitudes towards congress, the president, our political institutions, but i think they are abstract notions. when vote ors meet candidates or interact with officials, they know that the overwhelming that seniority of the people out there are doing it because they care and want to make the world a better place. >> host: the republicans are the daddy party and the democrats are the mommy party. what's the reaction when you hear that? >> guest: i think it's kind of cliche. we've reached the point in time where both parties really need to get together and figure out how to get the country moving in the right direction, and to the extent that we are stereotyping the parties or dividing them and giving some credit for some issues and others credit for different issues, it stymies progress. we are better off focusing on solutions. >> host: five factors that hinder political ambition. number one, young men are more likely than young women to be socialized to think of politics as a possible career path. number two, from their school

experiences to their peer associations to their media habits, young women tend to be exposed to less political information and discussion than do young men. number three is -- missing at this point, but number four are women are less likely to receive encouragement to run for office from anyone, and another one is young women are less likely than young men to think they will be qualified to run for office even once they are established in their careers. 202, 585-3880 for democrats, talk about women and politics, 585-33 # 88 for republicans, and we set aside a fourth line this morning for women who have run for office or are office holders. we're going to be begin with a call on that line from judy in minneapolis. judy, tell us what office you

ran for or what office you are holding. >> caller: hi. this is judy. yeah, i'm actually currently running forbackman's seat in the house of representatives district 6 here in minnesota. >> host: all right. are you in a primary? >> guest: -- >> caller: we have not had the processes yet. i'm looking for the dsl endorsement, and i have one person who is competing against me for that endorsement, and then there's three republicans that are seeking the republican nomination. >> host: judy, why are you running for office? what's the experience been like for you? > caller: well, i have a history of lobbying the legislature in minnesota several years writing legislation, pulling together agency people on the issue of childhood led poisenning prevention and solid waste issues, and i have not seen a resolution of that

epidemic for children, but at the same time, i'm living in the community where bachman has served, and i thought of running against her years ago and didn't, and i'm at a time in life, i'm 57 years old, it's a good time to do it thought of running for governor before, attempted to run for u.s. before, and so this is something that i'm ready for, and what i would say about what motivated me is i actually had a grandfather who was in the state legislature three terms, and i think having a relative close to me that has served in politics, possibly have an effect, and also had a very politically minded 6th grade teacher during the election of nixon, and so we were on the campaign trail in the 6th grade, you know, having our own little school election

and so on, and i think that was, you know, that was powerful at the young age to have that social studies experience in an election year with, you know, a very aggressive teacher. >> host: judy, do you think being a woman running for office is harder than being a man running for office? >> caller: well, i think the fact that -- ha-ha -- the fact that bachman held the seat for ten years, i have a feeling they like to vote for women, and they don't care what you say. say. that may be one thing going for me. i think that actually, for instance, for me, i don't see this as a career, and i don't think anybody should look at politics necessarily as a career. but when it is your time to step forward and take the job for a term or two, to add your input

and expertise, to do that. i feel like oftentimes the reason why i felt like running for governor before and attempted to run for u.s. senate is it is like a vacuum cleaner sucking in any normal human being instead of career people. i think there is no accountability for what they are doing, and i have been frustrated with congresspeople going to washington and then they are listening to the lobbyists in the beltway instead of the local constituents. think we have found you on the internet. are you judy adams, minnesota aggressive project? there is the caller we have been talking to. think a lot of the points that you raised are exactly right. we have 500,000 elected offices in this country, so average citizens are supposed to step

forward and run for these offices. it is not meant to be 500,000 career politicians. when you get to the federal level and we are talking about the u.s. house, the senate, or a governor, those tend to be more career like positions. but the majority are not. knowing about an issue, caring about an issue, and deciding it is time to do something about that issue is what we should be encouraging everybody to do. the other thing i would note is one of the findings we uncovered is a politicized upbringing does encompass very political teachers or high school or elementary school experiences that were politically charged, as well as political relatives. you have to look no further than the u.s. house of representatives to see several examples of multiple generations of elected officials. host: we are getting some tweets . nancyg tweets in, is pelosi and inspiration for you?

guest: i think any woman who has made it in politics high has to be an inspiration to anyone who does the kind of work that i do. the manner in which a lot of these high-profile women have managed to a compass not only their legislative goals but also make it important to increase the number of women politics -- women in politics is very admirable. host: sea of tranquility asks, "do you think the way the press trashes gop women is one reason they do not run for office, like they did sarah palin?" guest: jenny hayes and i have done a systematic media coverage study, focusing on the 20 10th congressional elections. we quoted more than -- on the 2010 congressional elections. we covered ash we uncovered no difference between male and female candidates.

of coverage really is an anomaly, and it is not what most voters are exposed to regularly. host: 500,000 elective offices in this country, professor lawless. what percentage had women running for that position? guest: most of those offices are held at the local level, and we don't have brought systematic data. but there is nothing to suggest that the percentage of women running is very different than the percentage of women holding those positions because we know care as much as men, so they are winning at equal rates. caller: jennifer, you have quite an impressive knowledge on your subject here. my question is about hillary clinton. i am a little afraid that rush limbaugh is going to get hillary clinton elected.

host: why do you say that, andrew? you're calling on the republican line. caller: i don't think rush limbaugh is interested in getting republicans elected. he is interested in getting democrats elected so that the people who pay rush limbaugh can make more money off a divided country. that is what i think. anyway, if rush limbaugh does get hillary elected, which is what the people who pay him get him to do, do you think she would be a good president, or will she be in it for the money like a lot of people think? i think rush limbaugh cannot get anybody elected president, but if we go down the path of assuming she's the nominee who gets elected, she is in a position where it will be far more lucrative for her not to run for office and the president of the united states. she and her husband can both command speaking salaries that

far exceed what she would make as president. it is hard to find a candidate, andgh, with a better resume more experience than she has, and it is going to be difficult for the democrats to have a nominee other than hillary clinton should she decide to throw her hat into the ring. 2000 eight campaign -- did you see evidence of sexism in that campaign? caller: 2008 -- some: 2008 did demonstrate gender dynamics. there's no question that the media -- not the named stream that's not the mainstream media -- focused on hillary clinton's and sarah palin's appearance and backgrounds that seemed to misogynist. that was a very small percentage of overall coverage, that those kinds of examples were played and replayed, and i think it sends a signal to voters that there was rampant sexism. on the part of voters, it is

difficult to determine whether there was any. some women supported hillary clinton because they wanted to make history. underwere others who were no circumstances going to support her, not only because of her own adage but because -- host: new hampshire. hillary clinton teared up talking about her campaign. edmund muskie teared up, 1972. he was out. is there sexism there? guest: hillary clinton, when she teared up, did not engage in an emotional breakdown. her voice cracked and there might have been a little bit of water in her eyes. this was not a meltdown. but voters are really looking, i think, for evidence that she was a normal human being, and that sent that signal. it did not suggest she was weak or unable to govern, it reinforced the human side that ultimately worked to her advantage, at least in that particular primary. ken, from new york,

independent line, go ahead with your comment or question for jennifer lawless. -- we: we had an upstate had a lady in upstate new york, a hotly contested local race for the assembly. won by two votes, and it was interesting to watch her because she was an extremely bright mer, a mother. i don't think she had an idea of how all-consuming the task was, but she stayed with it and she is a banged up job. if thereo wondering are inherent male-female differences? typically my impression of my own gender is that when we were boys we were all competitive in different ways. sports, thechess, math club, things like that. and a lot of men are drawn into ifitics because -- i wonder

she has any views on whether there are geographic differences , in the united states and maybe even extending to europe, where they seem to be making headway. thank you. guest: thanks for those questions. in terms of biological differences or inherent differences, i tend to think socialization overcomes any differences that might exist. in part, that is because the people who run for office are fundamentally different than everybody else. if you look at congress, the 535 people who served there are far more like each other than they are anyone else in the general population. so uncovering gender differences among them he comes very difficult just because they are driven,titive, assertive, and this is the case for the men and women who serve, which suggests that the manner in which you are raised and the qualities in which you are

raised to possess and exhibit can be taught and can be socialized. in terms of geographic differences, we really did not find any. it did not matter where these young and them and -- young men and women were from. not play aeally did role. across the board and across democratic groups, women are less likely than men to express interest in the process. host: have you done a compare and contrast politics business in other fields, in politics, law, to be where women are doing , performing at different levels? >> what is really interesting is law, we haveand surveyed over the last 12 years about 8500 men and women who work in those professions who are similarly situated, so they have managed to achieve the same levels of professional success in a mail-dominated profession.

yet it is from those professions that we see this gender gap in political ambition emerge. something seems fundamentally different about politics because these are women who have achieved the highest level of success in other male dominated realms. they are just not interested in doing it in the political realm. democratic is a candidate in rockford, illinois. tell us about your officeholding or you're running. -- ir: i am not president am not presently a candidate. i recently ran for local office as alderman. i found the experience very enlightening and informative, and i will continue to run for office. i question for your guest is, did she find in her survey any differences when it comes to economic or culture? i am a woman of color, and i did find because i live in a heavily majority districts that there was a kickback against that.

did she find any of that displayed in her findings? guest: we did not find any systematic differences in that way, but we are interested in finding if anyone is interested in running office am a and -- in running for office. while there is a lot of research that verifies the trends that you identify, those are not the questions we were interested in asking. host: john boehner recently said that the gop needs to be more "sensitive" to women. guest: yes, and then several republicans came out and explained that the way to create that sensitivity was to talk to their wives and daughters about it. not the best way to phrase it. to the extent that the democrats are able to exploit the gender

gap, they win elections. you have to look no further than 2012, to the mistakes of todd akin or bishop murdoch. mccaskills why claire is still on the united states senate. it is true the republicans have -- and they also should mean it. it is not just an example of opening a binder and reading talking points. it is a matter of speaking with constituents in a way that they care about the issues that face the population. host: binders full of women? guest: it is a terrible phrase but started out as an ok idea, which was a way to let findnatorial candidates to out who they would be appointing. when mitt romney did what he did in the states, the whole thing became part of a joke. the reality was republicans were

doing other things to reinforce the idea that they were not taking female candidates and voters seriously. men runis tweet -- "do forerently against women fear of being viewed as a bully ?" guest: in the 1990's, male candidates were more likely to talk about women's issues to show they were sensitive and capable of dealing with those issues. now we have reached a point where campaign tactics look a little more similar across the board. in hereu have a chart about visiting websites, political websites, and men go there more often, period. it has been over the years of to one,ogram, two t men call in more than women.

consistently for 15 years. that we foundt that among 18 to 24-year-olds reinforced that. the more things change, the more they stay the same. we have a situation where politics remains seen as a male domain. men are arena in which seen as being embraced and women are not. we have to get away from that. having more women on sunday morning talk shows, political talk radio, having them write to letters to the editor and op-ed is, will begin to open the door and let people see that women's presence can be embraced when they enter the political arena. host: john from lakeland, florida, go ahead with your comment for an a for loss. racial we don't tolerate profiling, but isn't your organization gender profiling? i would call it sexist. close the mission is to

the gender gap in political leadership, so we provide courses that call attention to the way that women in politics fair. we provide leadership training to direct people to the government. we have special events where we bring in women who talk about their stances, and all of our classes and programs and events bring in male and female students across the country. our goal is to bring people information so they can make decisions for themselves. host: amber is a candidate or williamsburg,in massachusetts. tell us what office you were in or are seeking or are holding. i ran a campaign in a community college that i attended in southern california, a student trustee position, so we were compensated by the state of california, and i was serving presidentrd and the

like anyone else who would have run in the city. comment has and the to do with sort of the experience of running because she is focusing on the institute getting students interested in teaching students and getting this age, 18, 19, 20, 21. for me it was really negative. i want to be really honest about what happened because she may have some thoughts and comments that may be applicable. a liberal,asian, and and most of the work i had done on the campus was to help students and help student mothers that were trying to go to school during welfare reform. you know, try to get childcare and keep students in college when they were being asked to leave if they did not have child

student care mothers. i agree with the governor, with some of his immigration policies. one of the things i know now, 20 or 30 years later, i ultimately went on to attend an elite college in the east and age of finance and had a really successful career. one of the things i did is, i was very honest and i spoke about my beliefs and talked 'sout some of the governor opinions about immigration. because i was not aware i was in southern california, most of the minority students on campus would respond so negatively to was, i had no idea what going to happen in the campaign. it turned into the most horrific , uncomfortable smear campaign while i was running. i will never consider doing this, and he just turned my

stomach. so i don't know if it is teaching people when they are in really vulnerable young ages or in college, about what you say and how things can be. just spread like wildfire in a -- i didbut but for me win, but i was sort of slandered, and they had another run-in candidate that ran against me and it turned into a negative experience. i don't know if she has maybe some thoughts about that. just being open and honest. tryt: one of the things we to do is disseminate information. well aware of the different things that could potentially happen, a win or a loss, a great campaign experience or a negative one. what i can say over the course

of last five years, interactive with dozens of candidates, or often than not, win or lose, the experience is incredibly positive. during the government shutdown, this article came out. women are the only adults left in washington. this is from "time." senators were talking across the aisle to each other. is there a difference between men and women? difficult to it is know, especially when this example is based on the united states senate and three or four women in a bipartisan way. we should be cautious in trying to generalize to the world -- that said, there is evidence to suggest that at the end of the day women collaborate and cooperate in a way that is different than men, and if there's any chance that that is true systematically, that is even more reason to feel more

female candidates and get more involved in politics. host: hi, susan. i grew up in a highly political family and we were encouraged to volunteer for campaigns. i graduated from conservatism to now i am pretty much voting democrat although i maintain my independence for the very reason that the woman before me said -- if you step out of the box at all and express one's opinion -- and i fault the left for this somewhat -- just the sense that if you have one opinion that the canon, you are automatically branded either a racist war -- it is so extreme. and the other thing, there is this impression that you cannot run for politics unless you are

a ged or have a masters degree for the kennedy school of government. you, and elite position at american u. but there is something for everyone, even college dropouts, if they have something to bring to the table. i do remember very vividly -- i lived in washington at the time -- and "the washington post" was covering donna shalala and hillary clinton, who happened to washingtonlunch at a restaurant on secretaries day, and one of the waiters came over and brought them inadvertently -- i do not think they recognize them, believe it or not -- a rose. and it immediately -- and immediately donna shalala was quoted as saying, "we are not secretaries!" i don't know --

lastly, congratulations on running in rhode island, our dear friend cathy just made it into the state senate there. susan, we are going to leave it there. running out of time. jennifer lawless? guest: the thing i would note is when there are already elected usices, it is incumbent on to identify candidates who would be excellent for whatever position they would be. there are no educational credentials or income requirements, especially for lower offices. what i would tell people, if there is an issue you care about and you think you or somebody you know would be an excellent candidate, don't worry about their backgrounds. encourage them to run. that is the best way to breed a successful campaign. he final thing i would say, if people decide not to run for office after making a conscious decision and weighing the costs and benefits, that's fine. a lot of people choose certain

professions over others. but the fundamental problem i see is that women are systematically less likely than men to have it on their radar screen of the first place, and that seems like a problem. host: a tweeps -- amongweet -- and chris, good morning. caller: it is not so much that i have a question, i would like to get the young lady's opinion off the air. i was a football coach a couple of years. from the time girls are younger, it seems they are more taught to be -- i hate to say this like this -- sexually attractive to men, the way they dress, the way they act. you talk about being competitive, and it does not seem that they are taught to be competitive. it seems like a natural extension of what you had said of them being the 90% caregiver in the home, that that would

follow into their careers. my daughter is a nurse, the other is a teacher. it seems like a natural extension of -- and i don't want to sound sexist -- but of them being a woman. i admire that you would run for office, but in a city like between it is very much the two parties. it is extremely hard to have name recognition, to develop those names, and to raise the funds that are necessary. is plentyink there for professor lawless to respond to. guest: it is true that it is difficult to go out and raise money and build name recognition, but nothing suggests that women cannot be as successful as men when they try to do that. i don't think we should assume that because it is a difficult task women cannot succeed. the other thing i would note if we see these trends of women becoming less competitive than men, we can begin to change that.

nothing is set in stone. we don't live in a world where we are left to navigate it, we can actually change it. that is what i think knowing competitive experiences can generate some sense of the competitive spirit. knowing that, i think it is useful and we can encourage young girls to get involved in if they have the background. host: duke from california, you're the last caller. i don't think you ought to be pushing for a process of eliminating men from running from office for one reason only, and that is they possess which leads -- disagree, but i push it the comment. i think we do ourselves a disservice when we exploit the capital and at the end of the

day elected officials represent their extension with ease. that is why the incumbency advantage is so high and they kept getting reelected. as long as we hold them accountable and get out there and vote and make sure there is electoral competition, we will wind up with better government. host: wild and wonderful tweets in -- guest: interestingly, men and women were both very turned off having to navigate this media environment with regard to privacy issues or they lack thereof. at the end of the day, that turns off both men and women at relatively equal weights. -- equal rates. zimonjill miller tweets in -- guest: i am familiar with this. name it change it identifies

sexist commentary in the media and put it out there so people are aware that the media are not treating female candidates well, and that is supposed to put pressure on the media to change the behavior. certainly absolutely nothing wrong with that, and it is a very noble effort. the thing i would mention is that the amount of sexist commentary out there is very, very small, and so that is not what is keeping women running for office, and it is not affecting women's election outcomes. if we have to make choices focusing on the lyrical recruitment and encouraging women to believe in themselves as candidates, that will ultimately lead to more women candidates. host: we have been talking to american university professor jennifer lawless about this report, "girls just want to not

>> host: joining us now is pete wanier serving as a senior speech writing in the presidential campaign. before we get in the article, over the past year, what was it like if mitt romney had been elected? >> guest: it would have been a better year. i think that better economic policies would be in place, and the economy would be recovering better, and i think america would have a stronger and more vital role in the world. i think there would be less chaos and disorder in the world, and we would be in the process of undoing and repealing the affordable care act, which i think is a monumental failure. ..are facing that are really being driven by what is popularly

known as obamacare, we would not be facing. i think we would be in a lot better shape. for national affairs, you and michael percent have written a large article, a conservative vision of government. i want to take a snippet of this and have you expand a little bit on it. you have asked the question, what is the proper and appropriate extent and purpose of government? and servitors in recent years have not done enough to answer this question. i think that is right. several things are going on. i think over the last five years during the obama era, conservatives have done a pretty good job at making criticisms of government and obama era policies. i think that is good, as far as they go. but with a have been able to do, what they haven't been doing is positivelate a more seal of government.

is way that i have put it that conservatives talk a lot about the dangers of the size of state but they don't talk about the purposes of the state. it is one thing that conservatives have made mistakes on and are open to criticism. in this essay in "national affairs," it is that they haven't articulated the purpose of government is, but there has been a kind of ferocious antigovernment rhetoric and mindset that has taken root and found a home in some elements of the conservative movement. when mike and i are trying to do in this essay is why we think it iss an error we think wrong historically, philosophically and politically. write,t the heart, you of the oppositional view of government espoused by some libertarians and tea party leaders, is a particular version

of american history. our national recovery they insist depends on returning to the governing philosophy of the american founders as it is embodied in the constitution. guest: that is right. his is the most interesting part of the article to work on. if you're familiar with the conservative debate and some of the ferocious antigovernment rhetoric, you'll find a lot of conservatives anchor their views in the constitution and the founders. what mike and i did is go back and analyze what the founders really believed at the time. it is a lot more complicated than that. what people need to understand is we have this great debate in the 18th century in which the , thealist founders antifederalists were viewed as

the antigovernment. they had people like james madison and alexander hamilton, george washington, james wilson. these are not people who view government as a necessary evil in the words of thomas paine. government properly limited and probably frameless central as a public good. so think what has happened is that the founders of the constitution have been is appropriated by some modern-day conservatives. they are invoked more often than red. i do think you people would go back and the debate of the american founding, the rhetoric tothis positional mindset government would be different than what we're hearing. i want to make one thing clear come i very much in favor of limited government. in the essay we explain why we are. i think there's a difference between limited government on the one hand and a kind of reflective rhetorical denigration on the other. some people are going to

read this are going to say establishment republican. guest: yes they will. i'm not quite sure what that phrase means. around as hurl that an epitaph are part of the establishment themselves. actually don't think establishment, per se, is that. -- is bad. i actually think if you look through the agenda that i have advanced in this essay with mike grierson that i'm mature it would qualify as establishment. i am very forward leaning and fairly bold and the forms that i have been advocating, both in writing and in meetings with congressional leaders. people can decide for themselves whether i am part of the establishment or not. it is not problematic, i like washington dc. i have a number of good friends here. i think people should be judged

not whether they're part of the establishment or not but by the merits of their ideas. host: a little bit more from important respects abraham lincoln continued the philosophical arc of the framers of the constitution. very true.s lincoln was the 16th president. i think he was america's greatest president, probably in competition with washington. here's a de facto founder of the republican party. here again, this is an individual who if you examine what he said, what he wrote and what he believed, was not was a denigrated of government. in fact he expanded the powers of government, much as the founders did. greatn really was the interpreter of the founders, probably almost without question the greatest presidential founders time the and again in his debates with stephen douglas and in this case

against slavery used to go back to the declaration and explain what that meant. here again come i think it is worthwhile to go back to read what these people said, what they believed. it is important to say that i am not arguing it would not argue that the founders are lincoln magically appeared in 21st- century america they be happy with the size of government. i suspect it would be concerned. dealto one i spent a great of my time arguing for limited government, why that is important and why i think that there have been a lot of mistakes from the obama presidency because government is toog too much and doing much poorly. our purpose here was to try and add what i suppose is a corrective to the conservative debate and the conservative movement. host: what is the ethics and public policy center? tanker onis a think it in 1976 by ernest lefevre. hass relatively small and

about 20 scholars here in washington dc. unlike some of the other think tanks that are around, it makes a conscious effort to try and the religious and moral dimensions of public policy. really has some of the finest .cholars in the country is a really a tricky place. it is one of the first ones i worked for when i came to washington in the 1980s. i had a series of jobs in three republican administrations and worked in the bush white house. when i left there in 2007, they gave me an office at home and i am delighted to be there. it is a wonderful place. host: speaking of the catholic focus, the pope has made some policy statements. rush limbaugh has caused some of his ideas marxist. we think about pope francis? guest: i think he is traffic.

myself am a christian, not a catholic, but a christian. i think he embodies in very many ways the spirit of christ. i think is good for the catholic church, which is an institution that has absorbed some tremendously difficult blows over the last eight. i think his humility and his humanity, his obvious concern for the poor and the disenfranchised, people living in the shadows of society, is terrific. i read this exhortation, the part that had to do with the economy was pretty minor in .erms of what he wrote i read it, didn't agree fully with his views. at that he is somewhat simplistic and his views and sweeping in his statements toward capitalism, but he is not an economist and what he is

arguing for primarily on not economic or public house in matters could use the head of .he roman catholic church i'm very intrigued by him and i think he is a part from being that important of a religious leader come i think there are some lessons that he can teach people in politics in terms of how to get your message through in a way that is not public anations related but really authentic insight into his heart and mind and soul. host: back to a conservative vision of government, your michael peterson right -- it speaks well of conservatives that they want to be thought of as the defenders of the constitution, but at a minimum, constitutional conservatives should recognize what both the federalist founders and lincoln actually envisioned for the republic they created and preserved. they

is an argument to go back. we talk about how nasty the debates can get. throng for christians -- i think it is wrong for christians to take

it's hard to know what the founders or lincoln would say what a particular policy. at think what you can know is what the animating principles o , what the philosophy that inform their thinking, theat disposition that they had, and you can take that and try andto apply it to the issues and challenges of our time. and then it can be instructive and helpful ichallenges. it can be instructive and helpful. host: the relationship between the government and the life of the people is a particularly challenging problem in our time. the overreach of the obama years has given form to the less powerful desire to manage and manipulate those realms of life that in our country have generally been left within the purview of the family, civil society, and local community. guest: i think it is one of the biggest distinctions between liberals and conservatives. institutions -- conservatives place a high premium on them. what conservatives have argued

for is that between the state and the individual there is human life that needs to be respected and supported. this modern liberalism tends to impose itself there. to think that it knows better. there is an impulse toward centralization. we see it in the affordable care act, which i think is problematic. we see it manifest in the current debate. religiousent about liberties in the affordable care act and whether religious institutions him and their health insurance policies, have to give out policies that would cover birth control and abortion. historically, the state has respected the wrist -- religious views of these institutions. administration,

keeping with modern liberalism, says we know better. you will bow before the state. we will dictate to you what you should do. you may have religious objections, but we really do know better. that is a precise and specific manifestation of this broader debate and tendencies. , this tweetwehner -- your response to this tweet. guest: not many and they shouldn't. there are some conservatives who either explicitly say or hint that this notion of dismantling the state and going back to the pre-new deal era. security would be unconstitutional. in practice, the republican

party is the political home of the conservative movement. there were no prominent conservatives who want to do it. the best figures in american conservatism and elected officials, in congress, people like paul ryan, are promoting far-reaching, very necessary reforms to programs like medicare. not to dismantle them, but to help them survive. at the rate we are going, if there are not necessary reforms, those programs will go bankrupt. at some point there will be a real jolt to the people who depend on those programs. much as we have seen in countries like europe, like greece. i don't think it is foreign to. it would be politically suicidal. ronald reagan made his peace and so should others. westerly, rhode island.

a letter to the editor in the washington times. time for republicans in name only to follow the tea party. writes, to paraphrase mark twain, reports of the tea party's death of been greatly exaggerated. the tea party will shortly become the dominant political force in america and here is why. here's a news bulletin. fightyou won't lead the

to reverse the socialist utopia that washington is jamming down thethroats, you can follow tea party or preferably just get out of the way. guest: that is a good letter at editorial in terms of capturing a particular point of view. is first thing i would say that the tea party has been a force for good in american politics. its genesis and creation was in response to an overreach of government by the obama administration. it manifests itself in several ways. years withthe early the huge money that was spent to try to get us out of the economic, financial collapse that we had. but mostly in the affordable care act. huge and important and positive force in the 2010 midterm election. i think that is good.

the instincts and impulses, many of them, of the tea party are good. that there is this kind of rhetorical overreach. there is a kind of reflexive denigration within some members of the tea party or some of the groups where every time government is mentioned in a agative light, it tends to be little bit of imprecision in the tea party. i wrote a piece in the wall street journal a couple of years ago -- michele bachmann considers herself a member in good standing of the tea party. they talk a lot about limited government. but then when specific issues came up like medicare reform, which paul ryan was pushing, she was very hesitant about getting into it. were very coolrs to the idea of entitlement reform. you cannot be a limited government individual in 2014 or

2012 and not be in favor of entitlement reform. there was this odd kind of schizophrenia that was going on. rhetorically, very far out there. then when you got into the policies, somewhat modest. the last thing i would say -- there is a conservative disposition and temperament. some people within the conservative building of the tea party have lost that. there is a kind of purification impulse with this individual got to. john boehner is a republican in name only. constantly berating people who are part of the establishment. wanting to burn heretics. more a notion of exclusion than expansion for the party and a kind of intellectual rigidity that i think has taken place. we sought in the republican party in the 2012 election.

if you could get $10 of spending cuts for tax increases, which of you republican candidates would agree to that? not a single hand went up. there is an ideology within the republican party, tea party movement that says you will not raise taxes under any conditions, regardless. i think that is not a conservative way to approach things. there is nothing set in stone about where the tax rates are right now. it depends on circumstances. it depends on what you get in return. any conservative would take that in a moment. this is an ideological rigidity that is taking place. i suspect that person probably shares it. host: one more quote from your essay before we go to calls. a truly conservative response to the advance of the liberal or progressive ideology would not

involve the adoption of an opposite and equally narrow ideology. guest: it is an interesting thing. of liberalism and isservatism -- conservatism a negation of ideology. wary of abstractions and of imposing per the polls regardless of circumstances. ofprinciples regardless circumstances. conservatism believes in the complexity of human society, the dangers of unintended consequences. the antithesis of a revolutionary rhetoric, utopianism. it has stayed away from ideology. one of the figures was edmund burke. the great british statesman in the 18th century. he wrote reflections to revolution in france. a fierce critic of the french

revolution. and rightly so. this was a person who wrote a great deal about the importance of prudence. taking into account circumstances, history. that is what conservatives should be. it should not be an ideology in the way that that is generally under stud. -- understood. host: peter wehner is our guest. stephen in california on our democrat line. . caller: thank you very much. wehner.l words, mr. i have a lot of problems that are coming across from conservatism. we are experiencing unfettered capitalism. if we live in a consumer society that funds 70% of our economy

and what makes more sense -- to have 150,000 people with $350 people or 350 million with $150 million? we had pretty close to that when clinton left office. i was making a very good living at that time. i was pushing a couple hundred thousand per year. i had an employee working at my gallery and things were working beautifully. now we are giving more and more tax cuts to the wealthy. is that somebody who makes 400 times what i make in a year is only paying 200 times what i pay in taxes. that is 50% less. if we have the temerity to ask that person to pay 55% of what i pay in taxes, that is class warfare.

that seems to be the conservative argument. host: i think we have a good issue to grab onto. guest: good question. i appreciate them. there was a lot of human hardship these days. driven by the economy. those are also difficult and poignant examples. let me try to take these in pieces. i don't think we have such a thing as unfettered capitalism in america. we have a fair amount of regulation. i would argue that a problem today -- let me say one other thing about capitalism. capitalism is the economic system which has done far and away the most to lift the poverty and to create a middle class. and to give people a chance for prosperity and dignity, work,

and human flourishing. capitalism has been one of the wonders of the world. that does not mean that it does not make mistakes or that it does not need the state to impose certain regulations. -- maybe a fewng libertarians -- for unfettered capitalism. in terms of the economy today, we have had barack obama who has been president for five years. he is not a conservative. he is arguably the most liberal president we have ever had. he has given us a historically bad economic recovery. job growth has been stagnant. in thember of people labor force. long-term unemployment reaching record levels. poverty a record levels. i don't think you can lay the problems of the economy at the foot or feet of conservatives.

i think a lot of it has to do with president obama. i think some of the things go beyond president obama or a single president. i think there are deep structural changes that are happening and that we have to deal with. one last point about this larger question about income inequality , which is a fairly hot topic in political circles and an issue obama talked about. income inequality has gone up in the obama years. median income for the poor has gone down, not up. that needs to be said. secondly, the united states is the most progressive tax system of any of the rich countries in the world. make, the top one percent 40% of all total income taxes. in the 1970's it was 20%. whatever complaints people have about the rich, it is not borne out by the data. host: kathy, montgomery, texas.

republican line. please explainou why the conservatives have the deep concern over obamacare and the overspending of the democrats and obama? our future is in despair. i don't understand why people cannot grasp this. it is not his race. he is half white. i am so sick of hearing that we are racist. we are so concerned for our future. could you please explain this. guest: let me try to untangle that. there is no question on the financial side. that we are going to have a day of reckoning. it may not be far in our future. you cannot continue to spend so much more than we are taking in and run this kind of debt. these constant deficits. more and more people are

understanding what is wrong with obamacare. for years, it was a kind of abstraction. president sold it on a false pretense, claims about it were not true. they needed to say them to get it passed -- that you could keep your health care plan if you had it -- he word, and of story. that is demonstrably untrue. is not just wrecking the american health-care system, but it is a huge drag on the economy. it is a huge problem. i think what is happening is that the american people are seeing this firsthand. with people losing their coverage. with sticker shock premiums, deductibles going up, people losing their plans. plans., employer remember, the affordable care act was sold as something that

would deal with a problem -- the uninsured in america. according to the congressional be at office, there will best 30 million people that will still be uninsured when obamacare goes into effect. in some respects the process of destroying american health-care system. to have gone from 45 million uninsured to 30 uninsured. there are ways of dealing with the problems of the uninsured in a discreet way. going back to conservatism and liberalism, this was the liberal impulse. that liberals would know better, that they would have a centralized plan, that they would command and control -- that these experts would be able to decide and run american health-care.

they cannot even get the healthcare.gov website up and running -- even though they had millions of dollars to spend, three years to prepare -- it was a disaster. , in this sense. the president and his party are paying a high political price for it and i suspect in the what he 14 midterm elections. -- 2014 midterm elections. host: a tweet. do you consider yourself a moderate? guest: no. if somebody considers me a moderate, they are pretty far on the french. i am a conservative. -- fringe. i am a conservative. i have a tremendous amount of respect for ronald reagan and margaret thatcher. burke, james madison, lincoln --

i think he is the greatest american president. all of those would qualify as conservatives. i think that there are people genuine, thinks that a authentic conservatism is not what they are for. they gravitate toward a kind of revolutionary, radical form of conservatism. the history of conservatism, the wisdom of conservatism, and i think what is the best interest -- you try to engage in a serious debate and rather than engaging in a debate, they write people off as rino's were moderates or whatever the agger --adjective of the day is. is the divideous

between libertarians, t partiers, moderates, establishment conservatives in the party? guest: it is real. months,in the last few john boehner pushback against tea party groups. -- he was insanely one of the leaders of the government shutdown. paulave people like rand -- a real libertarian. intelligent, well spoken. you are seeing the debate in domestic affairs and in foreign policy. paul is nothing like the reagan internationalist approach.

he does not really believe america should have a prominent role in maintaining world order. these debates are fairly intense. they are not unhealthy. not dissimilar to ronald reagan and richard nixon and henry kissinger. reagan was a strong critic of detente. reagan had a debate involving the panama canal. those debates are not bad. it tends to be somewhat undisciplined. you have these kind of back-and- forth. some of these issues will be resolved once the republican party dominates -- nominates a candidate in 2016 and the party

and the movement will unify behind them. host: dave in florida. independent line. caller: good morning. good morning, sir. [indiscernible] and theg the tea party people who are not that educated , but are totally fed up. going back to george bush. you keep knocking president obama. the main reason obama got elected in the first place is because that people were so fed up with the moderate conservatism -- i would almost say liberalism of george bush -- and the madness that went on then. around --ed right

they totally went directly opposite of what he campaigned on. people went ballistic. it is not an antigovernment -- it is an antiestablishment. host: thank you. guest: thank you for the call. let me try to untangle this. i do have some criticism of the tea party. as i said earlier, i think they are a force for good in american politics. i credit them with the 2010 midterm elections. but i think that some refinement needs to go on. party needs the tea to look within. some critiques need to go on. i don't think they are evil or nasty. ishink for most part, it comprised of good, generous, patriotic americans and the think the impulses are all right. i am a strong critic of president obama and that the

government -- what the government is doing. there has been a rhetorical overreach. it is hurray richmond government -- a disparagement of government hich is not healthy. president bush was a conservative by any reasonable metric. in some ways, even more conservative than ronald reagan. he never raised taxes. reagan did. huge advances on supply-side economics. he also had the tougher taxes. bush never had that. spending under bush was considerably less than it was under reagan. taxes were lower. i think president bush, as a

conservative, stands up very well. i think president obama was elected in part because of the financial crisis and the iraqi war. the media with both of those. -- let me deal with both of those. withdent bush was dealing reforms with freddie and fannie. who brought those reforms? -- was a junior senator blocked those reforms? one was a junior senator named barack obama. it was a rough kind of justice that president obama inherited the problem. the bush administration made real errors in the iraq war. the planning was not proper. the theory did not work. president bush changed it. he advocated the surge.

counterinsurgency strategy, beautifully executed by david petraeus. by the time he left office, iraq was in relatively good shape. it was a relatively pacified country. that has been undone, but not because of him. it is because of the policies pursued by his successor. host: a tweet. guest: no, i don't think so. it was a comment and one that governor romney himself said that he regrets. people have to speak for themselves. i am not wild about this notion of establishment republicans. people have to speak for themselves. view which does exist within conservatism that is very, very worried that we have

created a nation of takers instead of givers. people who have become overly dependent on government. they don't pay income taxes and they get money from various government programs and it has corrupted their character. and impeded better judgment. i think that the 47%, and was unfortunate. what republicans and conservatives have to do is find a language and set up policies that actually appeal to middle- class people. a huge changes happening in america that has happened in america over the past several decades. i'm not sure republicans and conservatives are aware of it. this is not 1980. white voters are increasingly smaller percentage of the electorate. the he 12 election was

first one in which the nonwhite vote was really decisive. mitt romney won the white vote by 20 points. that is historically very good. it is almost unprecedented. yet he lost by over 5 million votes. he lost the nonwhite vote by 63%. 1996, for every two years, the nonwhite vote has gone up 2%. i don't think the conservative movement and the republican party have adjusted. that does not have a disposition that is appealing to america today. if they are getting a higher percentage of a smaller pool of voters -- that is not a prescription for success. host: john in illinois on the

democrat line. you are on. caller: good morning. discuss top tax rates and conservatism from a little different point of view. it is a little long and complicated. if you think it has value, maybe you could keep the host from cutting me off. host: i will recommend that you add it yourself and get it down into a bite sized chunk. caller: you kind of ironically pointed out how the top one percent are now paying about 40% of the taxes and yet most people are aware that they are much -- paying a much smaller percentage of their income in taxes than in the 20th century. the implications of being able to double the amount from 20% to 40% -- they are paying a huge

percent of our total taxes but an ever smaller amount of their income. income is growing at an enormous disparity. the other main thing i want to discuss is about the concern with top tax rates. themizing revenue is one of concerns of government. it is a legitimate question to ask why is that a concern? while we are in so much debt, it obviously is. conservative is say that decreasing taxes increases revenue. theratechnologies and maximize revenue is important. host: a conclusion? is thatthe conclusion where the top tax rate would be. point is that if you brought it down to 1%, you would not be bringing in any income.

how can they argue all the time to only lower it when you don't necessarily know if you are already below the point which maximizes income? host: thank you. guest: that is an interesting and intelligent question. i agree with you to this extent. i do not think there is a magic rate. you cannot constantly argue that taxes should be lowered. at some point, taxes will in fact go to a point when there is too low and you don't get any revenue at all. the question is, what is the rate that maximizes economic growth and brings in the kind of revenues that you need? i would point out that when president reagan took over, the top tax rate was 70%. he cut it to 28%. hugh had huge economic growth. the 70% rates were clearly oppressive and problematic and where an anchor and wet blanket on the economy. under reagan, we had huge

economic growth and huge job growth. this is an, i think issue which really divides liberals and conservatives. the topic of this program. liberals few taxes through a moral prism and as an instrument to try to redistribute wealth. i don't see it that way. tohink taxes should be used fund government, not to redistribute wealth. what you should be thinking about is what are the policies that advance economic growth? rates thate tax unleashed the american economy and democratic capitalism in a way that leads to prosperity for people at every strata of society? liberals spend a tremendous amount of time concerned about inequality. inequality is endemic to human life. maury quality does not necessarily lead to better life. someone the other day pointed hadthat china under mao

much more equality than china today. but there is no question that china is better today in terms of what it offers its citizens. it could be that the rich are getting rich at a faster rate and the port for getting rich and the gap increases, but everybody gets better. that is not the issue. is there social mobility? if you have income inequality but not social mobility, that is a kind of caste system. that is problematic. pennsylvania, republican line. caller: good morning. on a macro level, what is your on aon about capitalism collision course with socialism? why don't we hear that word very often? in my observation, the past 60 or 70 years we are out spending

ourselves, but we do not want to raise taxes. i am not a socialist. i just would like to hear your opinion. yes.: the collision between capitalism and socialism. this is an old, now ancient debate between capitalism and socialism. been a capitalist country, it still is. president obama is a person of the left, so he is pushing policies to redistribution, high taxes, larger role of government. he has taken it more in a , likeatic socialist countries you see in europe. democratic capitalism is bad for all sorts of reasons -- better for all sorts of reasons. on the tax issue, the question is not whether we should raise

taxes on the rich so we make them pay more, so there is some kind of punitive aspect to this or so we decrease in the quality -- the question is what are the tax rates, what are the tax policies, what are the tax codes that lead to economic growth? and other republicans have been advocating and have put forward -- will put forward a conference -- comprehensive plan that will push forward reform of the tax code which would lead to some higher taxes -- lower tax rates, but a broadening of the base. the kind of tax reform that happened in 1986, the bipartisan deal between ronald reagan and tip o'neill and bill bradley and others. wondrous in terms of its economic effects. host: freddie, indianapolis. democrat. i am classifying myself

as a socialist communist. a socialist capitalist. the reason for that. let me tell you. reduce -- a redistribution of wealth. when the people out here do not , someone is going to have to feed them. have jobs to feed themselves, someone will have to feed them. if no one is feeding them, they will not let them go hungry. what do you think of that? guest: thank you for the call. i agree. i do think someone needs to feed them. i think one of the roles of the state is to provide, to give provision for the poor and particularly those who have been poor and needy for no fault of their own. i believe in the welfare state in that understanding of it.

that is partly why we wrote this article. , and i think the objective of the most conservatives, is to try to have fewer people who are poor. growth,uires economic peoplemobility, giving skills and talents that they economy. modern thinking about the poor in staying in the situation that they have and that the state needs to give the money -- that is not good. i understand helping the poor as a temporary provision in most situations. but it is not good for them and it is not good for society to keep them there. what you need to do is to have public policy that gives people the best chance to prosper and

to flourish. that does not mean that they are going to be essentially wards of the state. host: the last call comes from alan in maryland. on our independent line. caller: good morning. you used to determine antigovernment three times this morning. -- i don'tovernment understand why you use this term consistently like a liberal does. host: sorry about that. i thought you were finished. isst: the reason i use it that when you listen to the rhetoric of some people -- not all people on the right -- it is a constant barrage that is critical and denigrating of government. i would call that antigovernment. i do not think it is nihilistic or anarchist. i think it is a rhetorical disposition to criticize government.

critic ofin, i am a much of what government is doing. i think it is too large and needs to be limited. in the formulation of margaret thatcher, it takes too much to do too much for us. i think if you just listen to the public debate -- at least as represented by some people on it is this- denigration of government that i think is unfortunate and problematic. i think there is an element -- some people on the right to view government as a kind of necessary evil. i do not agree with that. i do not think that is really true. i do not think it is faithful to the best tradition of conservatism. host: a tweet. guest: i have tried to. you can go back and read the tape or watch the tape, read the

transcript, read the article. or go to commentary magazine.com. i have laid out, more times than i can count, more public policies, from the reform of entitlements, to the tax code, education reform -- i think that is a big issue. i think areas of private and public choice, charter schools, accountability, merit pay -- very important issues. i think reforms of energy -- it does not get nearly enough attention. this is important. i try to spend a fair amount of my time actually laying out what conservatives ought to embrace. this is a much more theoretical discussion and article itself, in terms of the philosophy of conservatism, as opposed to laying out a 10 or 20 point public policy proposal, which i am happy to do some other time.

--t: the title of the essay a conservative vision of government. it is available at national af >> thank you for being here. >> i enjoyed it. >> on the next washington journal, we look at president obama's relationship with the press and his administration's goals for 2014. and then george washburn university law school discusses how the u.s. determines criminals and illegals. and after that the death penalty information center on the use of capital punishment in 2013. your e-mails, phone calls, and tweets. washington journal live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> the deadline is approaching for a c-span student can video competition. answering a question what is the

most important issue congress should address. with a 5-7 minute video there is $100,000 in total prize is. entries i do by january 20th. >> the situation in the south sudan was one of the topics discussed at today's state department breaching, a dispute between the countries' leaders leading to accusations of an orchestrated to. for more on what is happening with the diplomatic personnel currently in that country, here is what spokeswoman maria hearts had to say. -- spokeswoman marie harf had to say. >> as you saw this morning with our statement today due to the deteriorating security situation and out of an abundance of caution the department of state ordered the departure of most u.s. employees from south sudan.

due to the drawdown of our personnel, we recommend we drawdown. in the coming days to a continued to work to keep our remaining personal safe to keep the support regional. even if we drawdown of personnel we continue to be engaged in a strongly support regional and international efforts to bring the violence to an end. secretary kerry and others have been representative -- impressed repeatedly, and our ambassador has remained in constant during vacation with south sudanese officials. just one more official no, our special envoy ambassador is an ethiopian ambassador for talks

between the two. >> to you have half -- how many americans are still in south sudan you wanted to get on the evacuation flights that you had them might not have been able to? i am not asking about the total number or rub people were there intentionally. people who had expressed a desire to him. >> i don't know the answer. i am happy to look into that. we have evacuated or foreign-born u.s. officials and private citizens and more than 27 other countries citizens on a charter flights and nine military aircraft. this morning there were two more department of defense c130. we have had a lot of flights coming out. >> and will that continue? presumably some of these people

were helping in the evacuation's. >> people have remained at the embassy. let me see. >> says the drawdown mean that there will be an impact on the future evacuation? >> we will keep looking. if we need to do more we will certainly do that. a few key personnel, and of course, our security. but i think we are open to doing more. >> up next book tv programs on books about world leaders. first the biography by a. scott berg "wilson." it

>> next pulitzer prize-winning author a. scott berg talking about his biography on woodrow wilson from the 13th and -- annual national book festival in washington d.c. and is 45 minutes. [applause] >> welcome to the opening event of the second day of the 2013 national book festival. incandescent perfect first day of autumn. if you were here yesterday you know what a contrast this is. i am the book critic of the washington post. thank you. thank you very much. the "washington post" has been a charter sponsor of the national book festival since the festival's inception and plays an active and enthusiastic role in many aspects of the festival's planning and promotion. i am instructed to remind you

that this presentation is being taped, and you should stay off of the camera risers that are located in the back of the pavilion. at the national book festival in 2001 the final event of what was a one day festival was a presentation by scott berg in the national building about his extraordinary by our roofie of charles lindbergh. he is back with us today, and it is both a pleasure and honor to introduce him for the second time at this festival. i have known him for 35 years. he came to miami where i was living in 1978 promoting his wonderful biography of national purpose. i just the year before published a biography of one of max perkins authors. we still have a that has persisted, although i must say at great personal distance.

the author of sam goldwyn, then byrd, the wonderful memoir of katharine hepburn, and now this fine, extraordinary biography of woodrow wilson for charles say only that almost alone among presidential biographer's understands that a president is a human being and has great emphasis on the personal and private life of a man his personal and private life is extremely interesting and important. [applause] [applause] ..

>> let me give you to parts of the platform. the first is, i know i am in

the most contentious city of the world, hold your tomatoes and tell a prove my point. but i believe woodrow wilson was the most influential president of the 20th century. here we are more than 100 years later a and we live in a world wars and the of woodrow wilson's creation. the second point i don't think there has been a more dramatic personal life that as unfolded in the white house they and woodrow wilson and as jonathan's adjusted, what i have tried very much to do is integrate those two things because i think they belong to each other. woodrow wilson's personal life, as any president to some extent, does inform his professional life and in the

case of the president of the united states, his professional life profoundly affects the country and though world. and i think woodrow wilson was the first president to affect the world so profoundly. let me run by a fuse superlatives past uses time is limited i have a big book i only have time to give you some of his greatest hits. but i thought if i threw out some superlatives because unlike superlatives that would give a greater sense of wilson or a take away. what you must remember integrating personal life and later professionally, that woodrow wilson was the first southerner elected president of the united states since the civil war. most people don't think of

him as a southerner board in 1856 in virginia the very first memory his father was a presbyterian minister then they moved into the confederate states of america. during that period when the wilsons were living in a guest of georgia, young tommy as he was known when he was almost four years old into the election of 1860's had taken place. this boy remembered hearing we did was just elected there will be a war. he carried that with him all his life and memories of the war as well. growing up in agusta he was scared of seeing the day to day horrors but anyone who

grew up in the south really experienced the devastation and wilson grew up after the civil war during reconstruction they moved to south carolina and he literally saw charge on dash charge cities hinted devastation with him that would have a deeper effect later in his life. because he will be called upon to decide whether this country would go in to a great world war and of course, he resisted and then finally jumped. the reason for the great resistance is he remembered the boyhood images that devastation of the word he used over and over what had happened to the south and as a result parenthetically woodrow wilson is the

american president who never grew up in the country lost a war that was the confederate states so he carried that emotional baggage because that change what the south was a.m. who southerners were. wilson said time and again during his life, there's one place in this country coming in this world, and nobody needs to explain to become a and that is the south. it was another place, another country. wilson's election was the great reintegration of the country, of the south with the union. woodrow wilson and others superlative, was the most educated president we have ever had. i hesitate to say he was the most island -- intellectual level not forget thomas

jefferson, but i will tell you that he attended the college of new jersey and princeton, graduated 1879, his aspirations, he had political dreams the great aspiration was to become as i discovered going through his papers he once made a homemade business card that said thomas woodrow wilson, senator from virginia. in the way to achieve the dream was to become a lawyer because most presidents began their professional life as a lawyer. also the senator from virginia because it sent more men to the white house they and anybody in history. so he went to the university of virginia law school where he studied. he did not like the steady

so much but after a year or two he moved to atlanta and open dialogue office and was a terrible liar. in his two years down there he obtained no clients. he love to spend the afternoons reading history. he read a lot of what was becoming a new discipline in this country called political science so he read a lot about politics politics, government, a history and how they all come together known as political science. after wilson realized he was not making a living as an attorney, he decided he would go to graduate school. one good thing came out of those only in the years is he had won peace something

that his family had thrown to him up piece of property that needed some legal work so he went to rome georgia where he was tying up the loose ends and where he, a presbyterian minister son met a woman named ellen who was a presbyterian ministers daughter and the two of them fell in love and had an old-fashioned 19th century court ship. little more extensive because although wilson was desperate to marry her he did not have the resources just yet so the engagement went on several years during which time they exchanged thousands of love letters. let me restate. thousands of love letters.

this is one of the most romantic correspondences ever put down on paper. i am not forgetting the adamses, the brownings, this really occasionally is hot stuff and many of you can get these picture woodrow wilson the grim presbyterian ministers sun was so long face but the fact of the matter is he was incredibly passionate, it intensely emotional and it comes out in the letters. and in retrospect knowing we will get a president who is this the emotional and feels things this deeply and so unabashed she can put any thought or feeling down on paper and can articulate.

this is rare for presidents i think. wilson upon getting engaged goes up to johns hopkins where he becomes the first president to have it a ph.d.. he studied political science , before he even received the degree realized in order to marry he would have to make a living so he chose academia. he felt politics was unfair unfair, he felt he had no chance not having any money or family background and could not get ahead. he could get a foothold so he began to support his family like a college professor than the very day they opened the school he was there when britain are opened its doors to just

women. he was not very happy they're teaching just women. even unhappier was mrs. wilson. they soon married for the opposite -- obvious reason that she thought they were not worthy of her husband. few years later he was teaching history and political science at wesleyan in competitive then in a few years he got the call he was secretly hoping for which was a job offer from princeton. he returned to where he took a school by storm. as he had as the undergraduate but this time the most magnetic presence not only on the campus but in this small town and increasingly in the state of new jersey.

as the increasingly becomes a public figure, intellectual, writes books, lectures, traveling all over the country. he is becoming a rather favorite famous thinker. because he proved himself so indispensable after 12 years they made him president of the college. this was a shock to the president -- to the campus to before it was described as the greatest country club in all of america. and wilson wanted to change that image to the almost overnight began to reform what was best called princeton university. introducing numerous educational reform he not

only changed education at princeton but effective higher education in this country. if you attended a college that you majored in something or a sequence of courses in a few took elective sam possibly had to lectures in their class class, that is the woodrow wilson model he combined those elements that he created himself and basically that began to spread across the country. here is a new one. woodrow wilson had the most meteoric rise in american history. in 1910, wilson was the president of a small men's college in new jersey.

a small, a men's college not a small man's college. [laughter] although james madison did go there. [laughter] 1771. so it cuts both ways. october 1910 woodrow wilson is still the president of this school in the middle of new jersey. managers it was the most corrupt state in the union with the most corrupt political machine, the democratic machine. [laughter] and they thought we need a puppet, the squeaky clean puppet in the state. who can we get? let's go to the squeaky clean professor wilson to

see if he has political aspirations. and he agreed to run on behalf of the machine. but they didn't realize is the first thing he would do is kick out the machine. literally physically shut the doors and banned the machine from even showing up in the building. over the next 18 months months, would to wilson introduced the most progressive agenda of many state in the union and got it passed. it was stunning because oh my god this college professor has sharp elbows and it was something. into now everybody turns to new jersey and they think who is this guy? and william jennings bryan having been the

leader, having lost three national elections, the party was now in search of a new phase, a new image it to do better than very progressive improper squeaky clean governor of new jersey? remember the most meteoric rise? october 1910 woodrow wilson is president the november 1912 he is elected president of united states. the 20th president. this is where the roller-coaster begins. he comes in with in the first two years and let's even called it his first term even but he passed the most progressive agenda that a country had ever seen. full stop. that's it.

he immediately redid the economy of this country to lower tariffs in a big way. it is not sexy i know but it was in favor of enhancing the graduated income tax that he thought was a fair way to go that would level the playing field for most americans. he created, represented the federal reserve system which to this day remains the bedrock of our economy. the eighth hour workday workday, compensation, the first issue on the supreme court every week or every month there was a new idea where wilson avoids say some new ideal would be passed passed, what he would present. this was it is first term of

office and he not only be defined to the possibilities but the executive powers a president could have been a political scientist knowing it was the least in there for the president can basically do anything he bonds until the with the somebody says he can't that is the supreme court or congress. so really she went into in with sharp elbows but arms swinging. this may be the most important will said redefined the way the president of the united states interactive with the

congress. he had a crazy believe the executive branch to the legislative branch should cooperate. and i mean that quite literally. he meant the two branches should:operate the government. it meant to he should make appearances. but then wilson did something extraordinary in he just begin to show up that a president had not stepped foot in the congress since john adams left in 18 '01. with the "state of the

union" address with a big ceremony that did that exist for another 112 years intel woodrow wilson decided i will come forth and present the status of the union is and what i foresee that as being and he did that every year such it became a washington institution but more than that wilson had a highly progressive agenda he thought in order to pass or herbicides i want to say to the congress how important by voting with my feet so wilson called 25 joint sessions of congress. once every few months he would show up, give a speech to say we have to get a bill

in the federal reserve system and is extremely important wilson would show up and give a top. it was extraordinary. then he did something even more extraordinary. he would show up the next day with a room that basically was an unused since woodrow wilson as it was before. for the room has a complicated name called the president's remanded is an idea george washington had for the building of the capital. there should be a small room possibly the most beautiful room in the capital of the desk, a few comfortable chairs in the purpose was to

have the eggs sillery office in which said president of the united states could come whenever he wanted and just sit there to discuss the losses he wanted and wilson did sometimes coming back four or five times per day to sets at the desk grabs senators, have discussions discussions, even run a little classroom. this part of his life influencing his professional life and he got these things passed so now there is a new mode of government. he famously ray and in the summer of 1914 and kept us out and then ran for

reelection in 1916 with the slogan he kept us out of war but rather famously on april april 2nd, wilson gave a speech to a joint session of congress and here is what he said. there is one line in the speech it may be the most important foreign policy speech ever given the foreign policy to this day or this week to obama talking about our role in syria, whether there should be a moral component all of these questions is the americans said the policemen of the world? and all goes back as every major policy decision was one to involve incursion elsewhere if the world ain't

it goes back to the world must be made safe for democracy. that has been adhered to come and misinterpreted misinterpreted, interpreted, like kidder not, agree or not, love for heat woodrow wilson does not matter. if has become the foundation of american foreign policy to go under the biggest mobilization to that day in history. week, buffered by big oceans on each side suddenly we're going to war with an army but now would send 2 million men overseas. i am not talking about crossing over but the atlantic ocean.

indeed america went to war and as a result, ameritech emerged as the first great modern superpower a genuine military industrial complex for the first time. there are all sorts of things but then made reason i believe they said to us into the war to believe we could be a part of the peace king came up with 14 points in the 14 of those was the most crucial the creation of something called cells the divinations. international parliament that countries could gather together incident the same table almost like a dream and then they could diplomatically iron out

their differences and was idealistic notion but it was the real deal for him. no reason i could not happen but one primary reason. one reason wilson got up to paris to negotiate the peace and was gone for six months. let me rephrase that. woodrow wilson was gone for six months. the president of the united states left december 1918 and tell july 1918. one quick trip in between and that's that but it came home with a treaty, was not perfect, he knew the flaws

but it incorporated the league of nations and he thought that could iron out any flaws. and as a all of you know, the matter what the president wants to put in a treaty is fine but the senate has to ratify it and he returned to the extremely high style republican senate and they wanted no part of it. and i found there were secret republican meetings while wilson was away and they were determined not to except any things that wilson came home with and that proved to be the case. not to diminish a genuine belief this was not a good treaty or a of the

destinations because that also had attached collective security if there was a violation we would object bin and fight. whenever we've mobilized. he realized he was getting nowhere but he embarked on the greatest political mission then-president has ever gone. that he would take the a idea of the league of nations and bring it to is that people. he would circumvent the senate and then go on a 29 city tour around the country the first time the president sold himself as someone who

sacrificed his life literally to sell the people on the etf or as wilson just corrected me, the ideal. as his famous now what i tracked in greek -- great detail in the book wilson collapse they rushed him home then he suffered a stroke and now begins what i call the greatest conspiracy because the second to mrs. wilson after having died breaking the president's heart, he really suffered a major depression got underfed -- out of bet

but late 1919 the second mrs. wilson and a handful of doctors conspired to keep from the united states to keep from the world the fact the president had suffered a stroke and for the last year-and-a-half of his second term virtually nobody saw the president of the united states. indeed every document that entered the white house that needed presidential approval every person who might be granted an audience had to pass through mrs. wilson. ng